What do you believe?

[Slavik44]

I know I chose the right religion. I am not trying to convince you or anyone. It is right for me.

However there is ample evidence in scripture to anyone who isn't wilfully blind to it to show that Christ existed, and His life was exceptional in the view of many and geographically isolated witnesses.

Of course you don't have to believe that that proves He is God. You don't have to believe that Hitler was a bad guy either. But you do have to consider the evidence.

Certainly, but not a single person on this thread has been willing to present one bit of tangible evidence. So what do you want me to consider? Lets lower the standards, just bullet down evidence that indicates there is infact a God.

[DarkAngel_]

hey betsy, do you know what Intelligent Design is? in science, we seem to think their is a more finite chaos in design for it to have been by intellegence, and the code in nature may have come out of a design of past events in 'nothingness', though the term 'nothingness is incorrect.

maybe it is more then a god, we have projected in our past the want for something more, a glance up, to wait for someone to take us, but i have seen stars, my mother called them: angels, i felt wind, my mom called it: the great spirit. but what draws us to this sky? us who find a way up, have no desire to just know, we need to find it in the heavens, but all we saw, was a dark room with dead sisters, but how did they die? all in our space is still unknown, but if we all look up for what might be, belief in a god is just 1, i picked none of them, they are all so beautiful, i would never pick just 1.

our definitions from the past are wrong, and i would not dare pull your halo down, but scientests could mean the begining anew! or the end of all things, our current leaders want the many to outway the few, but the few have found new definition for human: "?" but we have not heard it yet, we need new blood, because this old blood will make us die in our wisdom, which might i add, can be delusionary.

i agree, we do not know, but do you wish to know just by reading 1 book? it will take more then that, read what you wish, but the search is not over, i will continue, prove the god right in the eye's of the doubtful, you can only prove positivly, if i disprove you, will you not shift to another claim? as i said: i will continue searching, i hope you do too.

start with Intelligent Design, if you wish, you may see some proof, but also look into deductions made by some agnostic/atheists allot of them also have said it is unlikly that god is "ALL", but they disagree as well with eachother.

as well, the assassin in history, was often a lie, "history is a set of events people have agreed upon"

some of them are no longer true, jesus may have been born, history shows some evidence of this, he was right in his thinking, but a genus is often the most wrong.

[betsy]

hey betsy, do you know what Intelligent Design is? in science, we seem to think their is a more finite chaos in design for it to have been by intellegence, and the code in nature may have come out of a design of past events in 'nothingness', though the term 'nothingness is incorrect.

" The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research."

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

maybe it is more then a god, we have projected in our past the want for something more, a glance up, to wait for someone to take us, but i have seen stars, my mother called them: angels, i felt wind, my mom called it: the great spirit. but what draws us to this sky? us who find a way up, have no desire to just know, we need to find it in the heavens, but all we saw, was a dark room with dead sisters, but how did they die? all in our space is still unknown, but if we all look up for what might be, belief in a god is just 1, i picked none of them, they are all so beautiful, i would never pick just 1.

our definitions from the past are wrong, and i would not dare pull your halo down, but scientests could mean the begining anew! or the end of all things, our current leaders want the many to outway the few, but the few have found new definition for human: "?" but we have not heard it yet, we need new blood, because this old blood will make us die in our wisdom, which might i add, can be delusionary.

i agree, we do not know, but do you wish to know just by reading 1 book? it will take more then that, read what you wish, but the search is not over, i will continue, prove the god right in the eye's of the doubtful, you can only prove positivly, if i disprove you, will you not shift to another claim? as i said: i will continue searching, i hope you do too.

start with Intelligent Design, if you wish, you may see some proof, but also look into deductions made by some agnostic/atheists allot of them also have said it is unlikly that god is "ALL", but they disagree as well with eachother.

A lot of "could"..."maybe"...but nothing definite. Absolute.

Hey, as I say...for those who feel this great need to search for God...the "truth"....nothing stops you from continuing on with your researches....from reading each and every theory and book that comes out and get published. I acknowledge that some people have that need. For some, an almost obsesion. You are still on a quest.

But for some of us....we've already found our answer.

"It is not part of science to try to prove the world was or was not designed by God. It is not the job of science to try to explain the probability of biological developments happening by chance or not. If anyone wants to speculate about such matters, they are free to do so—as metaphysicians."

http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

jesus may have been born, history shows some evidence of this, he was right in his thinking, but a genus is often the most wrong.

Jesus is more than just a mere genius to me. He is my God. And of course, He is right.

[betsy]

Certainly, but not a single person on this thread has been willing to present one bit of tangible evidence. So what do you want me to consider? Lets lower the standards, just bullet down evidence that indicates there is infact a God.

Why is it that you seem so desperate to find proof and evidence? Even to the point of "lowering the standards?"

I understand your science cannot offer you any tangible evidence that there is no God.....so you desperately want me to provide the answer instead. Anything that could pass for a proof.

As I've said, this is all about faith. No requirements of evidence needed.

I am confident in my belief....even without any proof. I just know.

I cannot validate your belief for you. You'll just have to rely on your science and keep hoping that eventually, they'll stumble upon proof that God does not exist....a validation, some sort of reassurance...which obviously, you so desperately need.

[betsy]

An interesting read...

"I once wrote a column pointing out that intelligent atheists had often converted to Christianity, and cited the case of C.S. Lewis. At least one of my readers wasn't impressed. Noting that Lewis had been fond of mythology since childhood, the reader dismissed the century's most prominent Christian apologist on the grounds that Lewis "was never a convinced and committed atheist."

If they were simply humble, open-minded inquirers as they claim, you'd think at some point they'd admit that their previous explanation might not hold water after all. Instead they've clung to it all the more determinedly. They've taken to insisting that we no longer speak of the "theory of evolution" but rather the "fact of evolution." They say decidedly unscientific and irrational things like "even if it has problems it's the best explanation we've got" — as if admission of their own ignorance, much less God's guidance in creation, were out of the question. You'd think evolution was a religion itself.

And so it has always been, argues biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter in his fascinating new book, Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Backed by extensive quotation, Hunter contends that Charles Darwin and his heirs, far from being disinterested scientific observers, came to their views based on their assumptions about God. They looked at the world, decided it should have been designed better, and concluded that God simply wouldn't have done it that way. Hunter writes:

Darwin was concerned, for example, that tons of pollen go to waste every year, that some species are ill-adapted for their environments, that ants make slaves of other ants, and that parasites feed off their victims. He tried to make sense of what seemed to be the evil side of nature. "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful blundering, low and horribly cruel works of nature," he concluded a letter to a friend.

How could divine creation be reconciled with such evils? It was questions like these that, for Darwin, seemed to confirm that life is formed by blind natural forces. He was motivated toward evolution not by direct evidence in favor of his new theory but by problems with the common notion of divine creation. Creation, it seemed, does not always reflect the goodness of God, so Darwin advocated a naturalistic explanation to describe how creation came about.

Not that Darwin was precisely an atheist. One of the most interesting aspects of Hunter's book is his exploration of Darwin's concept of God — a concept shared by many people of his time and in the centuries leading up to it. By Darwin's time influential people (including leading Victorian thinkers dominant in his native England) thought God was supposed to be utterly comprehensible to human reason, and invariably benevolent in His dealings with man. "God's goodness and wisdom were thought to be manifest in creation," Hunter summarizes, "but not his providence, judgment, or use of evil."

This was not even remotely like the God revealed in the Bible. Indeed, all of Scripture shows God actively guiding history, in ways often mysterious to men, especially in their own lifetimes. Scripture also tells of how all creation, not just mankind, has been corrupted, leading to the world Darwin found so inefficient and cruel. Had Darwin been steeped in a biblical worldview, maybe he would have found these realities easier to accept. But the God he'd heard about would never have created the world he saw in nature; this God had to be distant from it all. No wonder so many of Darwin's successors have stepped into outright atheism; if God hasn't done anything since the dawn of time, why believe in Him at all?

Yet as Hunter notes, "It is perhaps one of the great ironies in modern religious thought that one can profess to be an agnostic, skeptic or even atheist regarding belief in God yet still hold strong opinions about God. Evolution may breed skepticism, but its adherents have continued to make religious proclamations. And those proclamations are really no different from those made by Darwin and his fellow Victorians."

For example, for [science philosopher] Michael Ruse God cannot be reconciled with the facts of biogeography, so we must turn to evolution. He argues, "Given an all-wise God, just why is it that different [life] forms appear in similar climate, whereas the same forms appear in different climates? It is all pointless without evolution." According to [geneticist] Edward Dodson and [geologist] Peter Dodson, if God had created the species, then they should be distributed evenly about the globe. They write, "Had all species been created in the places where they now exist, then amphibian and terrestrial mammals should be as frequent on oceanic islands as on comparable continental areas. Certainly terrestrial mammals should have been created on these islands as frequently as were bats." It is remarkable how often evolutionists feel free to dictate what God should and shouldn't do.

The sheer arrogance of it all may be striking to the Christian reader — or for that matter to anyone who, in the words of a priest in the movie Rudy, knows at least two things: "There is a God, and I'm not Him." But we shouldn't find such arrogance completely surprising. Adam and Eve, after all, thought Satan's promise of godlike knowledge — and hence godlike stature — to be an irresistible temptation. In this sense, all of us really do reflect the traits passed on by common ancestors, pride foremost among them. Evolutionists just dress theirs up in scientific garb.

But in the end evolution is not pure science, and Hunter's purpose is less to argue against evolution (though he does do so) than to show that evolution rests on metaphysical assumptions. "An unspoken, unscientific position underlies evolution, and until this is understood public debate will continue to be more confusing than enlightening," Hunter concludes. "We need to understand these things because, ultimately, evolution is not about the scientific details. Ultimately, evolution is about God."

http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000519.html

[DarkAngel_]

so betsy, you found your answer? your lucky, indeed i found only the obsession to find one.

once i loose something, i look for it franticlly , once i find it i feel, kinda complete in an odd way .

every time i hear a song, that i like of course, i kinda think "what is there, rather then what i know?"

i don't know something, what is it? i accept my confusion, much like you do, but i do not accept a silent answer, their is more, but i have a time limit, to find it before death, i hate to waste! so i do not waste my time! as i write this i learn anew! i must accept that i will not know, but at least i'll get closer for all of those after me, that may get even closer then i.

religion strikes with phantom fangs at children that might learn, that are curious. if we were not set back by religion, we could know by now! is that wrong?

but some say with out it; we would fall into anarchy, i would not, i have rules as well as everyone else, look up a short episode of 'moral oral' and you'll see what i see in privite religion in a comunitee, i hade to deal with this, i hope no other kid will.

as well, i hope people begin searching, a path is not just known, its walked. the diffrence is, what have you to choose?

also, as i've read parts of the bible, he seemed to be a philosophical genus, very good at observational analigy and spaital metaphor, he hade a depth in my opinion, but it seemed to be back tracked or followed by another metaphor... a gap? i'll read more and tell you what i think.

[cybercoma]

Congratulations Betsy, for you're one of the very few people on the planet that was born into the 'RIGHT' religion that holds the truth, regardless of any empirical evidence to the contrary. Please go out and let all the other sects of Christianity know that they're wrong; let the Muslims and Jews know they're wrong; let the hindus and the Sikhs know they're wrong; tell the buddhists that they're wrong; go back in time and let all the other religions that have ever existed know that they are wrong. Then, perhaps...just maybe, you'll realize that the beliefs you were born into are a drop in the ocean of religious belief and the fact that your parents put that label on you when you were born is the only reason you have 'FAITH' that it's correct and everyone else is an ignorant sinner, doomed to burn in the flames of hell.

We need to take care of each other on this rock floating in space because all we have is each other. Segregating each other by religious labels that are placed on our children before they're even of an age that they can understand the differences between major religions (let alone the subtle differences between different types of Christianity, or different types of Islam, etc) will eventually be seen as the greatest autrocity this world has ever known. I have faith that humanity will be able to raise its consciousness to a level where people will stop murdering and dying for a mystical being in the sky.

We need to take care of one another and wasting our time here appealing to a ghost and murdering in his name is not helping.

[betsy]

Congratulations Betsy, for you're one of the very few people on the planet that was born into the 'RIGHT' religion that holds the truth, regardless of any empirical evidence to the contrary. Please go out and let all the other sects of Christianity know that they're wrong; let the Muslims and Jews know they're wrong; let the hindus and the Sikhs know they're wrong; tell the buddhists that they're wrong; go back in time and let all the other religions that have ever existed know that they are wrong. Then, perhaps...just maybe, you'll realize that the beliefs you were born into are a drop in the ocean of religious belief and the fact that your parents put that label on you when you were born is the only reason you have 'FAITH' that it's correct and everyone else is an ignorant sinner, doomed to burn in the flames of hell.

We need to take care of each other on this rock floating in space because all we have is each other. Segregating each other by religious labels that are placed on our children before they're even of an age that they can understand the differences between major religions (let alone the subtle differences between different types of Christianity, or different types of Islam, etc) will eventually be seen as the greatest autrocity this world has ever known. I have faith that humanity will be able to raise its consciousness to a level where people will stop murdering and dying for a mystical being in the sky.

We need to take care of one another and wasting our time here appealing to a ghost and murdering in his name is not helping.

You sound offended.

I don't know why you keep responding...looking for proof. I'd like to remind you again, that you, just like Bertrand Russell, have proved nothing. You are merely stating your beliefs.

And by your persistence you apparently have a great deal of FAITH in your BELIEFS.

[cybercoma]

Offended? Hardly.

The only thing I find offensive is labelling children as being of a certain mind (Christian, Baptist, Lutheran, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) when they're obviously incapable of understanding those doctrines and the differences between them.

I'm not looking for you to provide me with proof, the question was rhetorical. What you need is to believe, something that doesn't need evidence or proof.

Believing in biology and science is not "faith". When new evidence arises, old 'beliefs' are quick to be thrown away and new ones adopted based on facts and evidence. Religions have no need to prove the existence of their Gods because they do not require their followers to think or examine evidence, the only requirement is strict faith and adherence to the teachings of each religion.

Several posters in this thread have shown why this is damaging to our society and have called upon you and the other defenders of religion to prove the existence of God. You cannot and will not do that because there is no 'need' for it to be proven; however, I'm certain if there was scientific proof of his existence you'd be the first one to flaunt it.

[doom_sayer]

i'll admit that i'm pretty far out there, but you'll go some to convince me that fire is not a living entity. it must breath and feed. it grows, reproduces and struggles for it's own survival. i believe nature be capable of thought- far more complex thought than we are capable of, in fact. because we aren't aware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. perhapse somewhere in existence there is something that decided to create our universe, but in reality it's no god. if it is, than gods are just other forms of 'life', and if there is one, there are more. based on what WE can observe there isn't just one of anything. but what can a primative creature like man know anyway? we're only able so see three colors! the important thing for us to do is forget our pride and fears, and strive for nobility. if we have a creator, and supposing i could converse with it without going instantly and TOTALLY mad, then it's just another being. it may deserve praise and respect, but not worship. after all, if the same laws apply to it as us, it evolved from a primative form of life just as we are doing. no life is greater than another.

[doom_sayer]

Offended? Hardly.

Believing in biology and science is not "faith". When new evidence arises, old 'beliefs' are quick to be thrown away and new ones adopted based on facts and evidence. Religions have no need to prove the existence of their Gods because they do not require their followers to think or examine evidence, the only requirement is strict faith and adherence to the teachings of each religion.

Several posters in this thread have shown why this is damaging to our society and have called upon you and the other defenders of religion to prove the existence of God. You cannot and will not do that because there is no 'need' for it to be proven; however, I'm certain if there was scientific proof of his existence you'd be the first one to flaunt it.

earlier in this thread someone mentioned a verse in the bible that was drilled into them at bible camp. they were made to repeat it over and over. this sounds like a brainwashing tactic. cults, which in reality all religions are (some are just more popular than others), feed on fears and weaknesses to gain control. religion, government and organized crime all operate the same way. one is only more righteous than the next because of it's size and power, which is directly related to the fear-strings they each tug at. if science ever discovers "God", i seriously doubt the definition of that noun will remain the same.

[betsy]

Offended? Hardly.

The only thing I find offensive is labelling children as being of a certain mind (Christian, Baptist, Lutheran, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) when they're obviously incapable of understanding those doctrines and the differences between them.

I'm not looking for you to provide me with proof, the question was rhetorical. What you need is to believe, something that doesn't need evidence or proof.

Believing in biology and science is not "faith". When new evidence arises, old 'beliefs' are quick to be thrown away and new ones adopted based on facts and evidence. Religions have no need to prove the existence of their Gods because they do not require their followers to think or examine evidence, the only requirement is strict faith and adherence to the teachings of each religion.

Several posters in this thread have shown why this is damaging to our society and have called upon you and the other defenders of religion to prove the existence of God. You cannot and will not do that because there is no 'need' for it to be proven; however, I'm certain if there was scientific proof of his existence you'd be the first one to flaunt it.

Believing in biology or any science is not the same as discussing philosophical concepts. No scientist will disagree with that. They are separate disciplines. Unless of course you want to discuss the philosophy of science, in which case there'll be no proofs available.

I've just read your footer by chance. It seems to me that your beliefs aren't your own.

Apparently you've been brainwashed by the writings of Sagan and Weinberg...et al. The closest you've come to thinking for yourself is agreeing with them. I am not trying to be rude. I'm just saying you're learning from them as much as children are from their parents.

I know you are an adult....but your knowledge of science or philosophy is no further advanced in the larger scheme of things than that of a Christian's child.

Almost certainly Sagan and the boys would teach their children their beliefs. That's the way of things.

Because you've decided that you like their theories does not make you an independent thinker, anymore than the children in Sunday School. And remember theirs are belief systems as well...which are in fact religion.

Weinberg imagines that the concept of good and evil spring from the mind of man. Christians believe that these concepts derive from God. Neither can prove their beliefs. Have faith, my friend.

[doom_sayer]

Welberg imagines that the concept of good and evil spring from the mind of man. Christians believe that these concepts derive from God. Neither can prove their beliefs. Have faith, my friend.

aren't all concepts concepts of man? how is god any different from the dead gods of the past like zeus or ra? has anyone here (while in a lucid state of mind) ever had a direct conversation with god? i personally believe that we are at a turning point in our civilizations development. we are finally learning to let go of religion for a more reliable source of knowlege. science. the new new testiment of the bible will likely be far less filled with magic. unless that is we blast ourselves back to the stone age and have to start over again. in which case, many of the technologies we have now may be viewed as magic and miracles.

[betsy]

Welberg imagines that the concept of good and evil spring from the mind of man. Christians believe that these concepts derive from God. Neither can prove their beliefs. Have faith, my friend.

aren't all concepts concepts of man? how is god any different from the dead gods of the past like zeus or ra? has anyone here (while in a lucid state of mind) ever had a direct conversation with god? i personally believe that we are at a turning point in our civilizations development. we are finally learning to let go of religion for a more reliable source of knowlege. science. the new new testiment of the bible will likely be far less filled with magic. unless that is we blast ourselves back to the stone age and have to start over again. in which case, many of the technologies we have now may be viewed as magic and miracles.

The expression of all concepts may spring from the minds of men. Christians believe that the concept of good and evil came from the mind of God. You may not agree, but that is hardly the point.

That's interesting what you believe. At least it leaves room for rational discusiion.

And at least you're in the right thread.

But maybe for some we should start a new thread: "Can't Prove It. Nya-nya-nya "

[doom_sayer]

The expression of all concepts may spring from the minds of men. Christians believe that the concept of good and evil came from the mind of God. You may not agree, but that is hardly the point.

it shouldn't matter if i agree or not. i don't know who claims 'God' wrote the bible. it was written by people. old testement and new. therefore, the source is man. we certainly should not trust what the church teaches. they don't know shit. galileo will tell you all about that. and yes, i have ideas that throw faith out the window in favor intelligence (not that i claim to have an abundance of that!). all you need to do is think about how things work now when thinking about what happened back then. i know a fable when i read one!

[betsy]

The expression of all concepts may spring from the minds of men. Christians believe that the concept of good and evil came from the mind of God. You may not agree, but that is hardly the point.

it shouldn't matter if i agree or not. i don't know who claims 'God' wrote the bible. it was written by people. old testement and new. therefore, the source is man. we certainly should not trust what the church teaches. they don't know shit. galileo will tell you all about that. and yes, i have ideas that throw faith out the window in favor intelligence (not that i claim to have an abundance of that!). all you need to do is think about how things work now when thinking about what happened back then. i know a fable when i read one!

Well said.

But I didn't say God wrote the bible. I merely said that Christians believe that the concept of good and evil flows from the mind of God. That's a major tenet of our faith.

[cybercoma]

Less than 100 years ago, God-fearing Christian men believed their wives were their property. They even used the Bible to justify this.

Thank goodness something other than the Bible determines morals; it would seem morals change in spite of religion, not because of it.

[betsy]

Less than 100 years ago, God-fearing Christian men believed their wives were their property. They even used the Bible to justify this.

Thank goodness something other than the Bible determines morals; it would seem morals change in spite of religion, not because of it.

Jesus didn't teach wives were the property of men. Just like He didn't teach that slaves were the property of masters. They were, both wives and slaves, the property of men. But it had nothing to do with Jesus.

Blame Ceasar for that which was Ceasar's, credit Jesus for that which was God's. If I may be permitted a pseudo-quote.

[cybercoma]

Less than 100 years ago, God-fearing Christian men believed their wives were their property. They even used the Bible to justify this.

Thank goodness something other than the Bible determines morals; it would seem morals change in spite of religion, not because of it.

Jesus didn't teach wives were the property of men. Just like He didn't teach that slaves were the property of masters. They were, both wives and slaves, the property of men. But it had nothing to do with Jesus.

Blame Ceasar for that which was Ceasar's, credit Jesus for that which was God's. If I may be permitted a pseudo-quote.

But Jesus is God and God wrote the Old Testament...I mean, unless you reject over half of the Bible entirely.

[betsy]

i don't know who claims 'God' wrote the bible.

I do!

But Jesus is God and God wrote the Old Testament...

[doom_sayer]

But Jesus is God and God wrote the Old Testament...I mean, unless you reject over half of the Bible entirely.

so god wrote the old testament, did he? are you sure about that? because i'm pretty sure people wrote it. and no, jesus is not god. he is (supposedly) a part of the holy trinity... they are three seperate things- father, son, and holy spirit. by the way, jesus was no more the son of god than i am, or anyone else for that matter. he was a great man and a great teacher, but no more than a man.

[doom_sayer]

i don't know who claims 'God' wrote the bible.

I do!

But Jesus is God and God wrote the Old Testament...

where did you come by this information? it's certainly not stated anywhere in the bible.

[doom_sayer]

Less than 100 years ago, God-fearing Christian men believed their wives were their property. They even used the Bible to justify this.

Thank goodness something other than the Bible determines morals; it would seem morals change in spite of religion, not because of it.

i think it's religion that taught these morals. it was the church, afterall, that decided 'witches' should be burned at the stake and tossed off cliffs. these things aren't endorsed in the bible, old testament or new. don't be confused when you read about bad things happening therein.... they are lessons to teach us consequence. an eye for an eye doesn't mean you should take the eye, it means you should take no more than an eye for an eye.

[ClearWest]

by the way, jesus was no more the son of god than i am, or anyone else for that matter. he was a great man and a great teacher, but no more than a man.

The gospels seem to indicate otherwise. Christ himself indicated otherwise.

[doom_sayer]

by the way, jesus was no more the son of god than i am, or anyone else for that matter. he was a great man and a great teacher, but no more than a man.

The gospels seem to indicate otherwise. Christ himself indicated otherwise.

jesus didn't write the bible either. in fact, none of the letters jesus wrote throughout his lifetime even made it into the bible. the new testament was written by fanatical disciples. did the burning bush actually speak to moses? no. what i'm trying to get at here is that we need to apply present day common sense in order to understand the lessons of the bible. for instance; it's far more likely that jesus swam to the fishing boat rather than litterally walked on water. if such miracles don't occour today, they didn't occour then. fables.